RE: [-empyre-] galleries & ........

[Christiane_Paul@WHITNEY.ORG]

Hi Reiner,

>>Why is it art? still remains the main question.

>This question will come across when showing any kind of art to >the
"public"(people not handling with art) - not only new media, >contemporary
art but also art from the "Moderne" ........ 

True but in new media it really becomes the standard question (it is not
automatically asked about work that presents itself as an "object" -- even
if that object happens to be a urinal). What many people see in new media is
technology as a gadget and gizmo with surprising effects. They focus on
technology rather than the mediated content while for people familiar with
the tech, it becomes transparent.

>Back to "new media". Well the "kinds" of art realized under >this
"headline" are very different in themselves - nevertheless it might >be of
interest to look at "What", "In Which Way" and "Why" is "readable" >or not
(for the art world and public at large).

I very much agree and this is what I find most interesting. These are just
some of the observations I made on this (very general and unspecific; and
I'm not talking about the people who are familiar with the medium):

*again, "what" many people are seeing is first and foremost technology. In
the context of museums in general, this is what many people associate with a
natural history museum (planetarium etc.) or a scientific tradeshow. Thus
the reaction "This belongs into a science fair." On the other hand, there
are the people who are engaged with computers and technology in their job;
they may have never heard about the existence of net art but they are
immediately engaged, with a focus on content rather than technology

*The way in which many pieces are read is often in connection to traditional
art forms. If the audience can apply parameters and aesthetic languages of
media such as painting, photography, video, the work becomes more readable. 

*Very readable seem to be works that are "painterly" and rely on beautiful
graphics with a limited interaction. Problematic are pieces that rely on the
audience for input (such as pieces that set parameters for interaction but
ultimately need the audience to "create" the piece). Most common reaction,
"Why would anybody let the public mess with their artwork?" (I have a
feeling that the people asking this question seldom think of themselves as
part of "the public.") The fact that many net art / new media pieces are
process-oriented is often interpreted by the audience as randomness (without
realizing in how far this randomness is controlled by the artist).


 
>>While net art is ultimately "public" art, it is a challenge to
>>successfully show it in public places and I believe there
>>needs to be a connection between the public space of the net and the
>>public space of the gallery. The Apartment is a very good example 
>>(Marek mentioned the way it was shown at Eindhoven earlier). In that
>>form of installation, you can experience it in a way that would never >>be
possible at home and it really benefits from that form of extension.

>My experience of presenting "net art" in public spaces/gallery/museum
>are very different (sorry, I have not very much). Some works really work
>fine by simply "projecting" (esp. works using less or no interactive
>elements). Works with more or concentrated on "mechanical" interactivity
>are more difficult - the experience when taken by a viewer - is >different
(does not mean worser) - [and can be enhanced or changed as >mentioned in
the example in form of an installation or by creating other >forms of
"interfaces"]. Often user habits, handling problems and the >place itself
(gallery, museum) interrupts an experience of the piece.


My earlier comment about the Apartment wasn't meant to say that this is the
way to show net art. I believe there is no "ideal way" but it always has to
be decided on a case-by-case basis. There are pieces that lend themselves to
projection (in other cases, projection becomes an experience similar to
watching TV with someone else controlling the remote -- one person
navigating, 50 people watching). Pieces that allow multiple users to
interact with them are usually easier to show and immediately get the point
across. But there are pieces that need a one-on-one interaction and they
often work best in a lounge-environment. The Apartment is an example of a
perfect projection/installation, which is also very much due to the fact
that it is inspired by memory palaces -- the "inscription" onto a wall makes
the connection to Cicero's technique of mentally inscribing sections of a
speech onto the walls of rooms in a villa (and recalling it by mentally
walking through the rooms).